: who want to work with you toward a common goal, as
opposed
: to putting up with the disruptions and distortions and
: evasions and downright lies that we get so used to here.
: (You want examples? Try Wik or Nico or RK. ...
More off-topic slander. I'm not surprised. I don't even
contribute to Wikipedia anymore, ever since many members on
this list became actively anti-Semitic. It was bad enough
when proven Nazis like Stervertigo, and his cheerleader
Martin (MyRedDice) Harper were allowed to push their views
with the full support of this list.
It got worse when various list members wrote and telephoned
me privately in support, but admitted that they would never
speak out here in public because they were afraid of being
ganged up on (they were correct.)
It got even worse when your so-called arbitartors publicly
demanded that I accept admitted Nazis and work with them.
(Such quotes are still archived.) Sane people would see
that as obvious Jew-baiting; similarly, demanding that our
black contributors work with members of the Ku Klux Klan
would be racist black-hating. Yet sadly when this was
brought to the attention of this list, none of you
mentioned any problem with this.
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned
you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly
vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites.
Yet in response, you refused to ban this person.
Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's
views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as
a contributor.
People like you would be (and indeed, are) fired from
respectable encyclopedia projects.
Every wonder why so many people leave this project? It has
been taken over by leftists, anarchists, anti-science
whackos and hatemongers.
To be blunt, as long as you refuse to reform your system,
and as long as you allow these people to push hatred and
nonsense, Wikipedia will never be respected. It may become
popular, as Google hits show, but then again the
Nazi-website "JewWatch" is popular as well. Being
associated with this kind of popularity is something that I
do not want. I should have listed to my colleagues last
year, when they told me that they forbade their students
from using Wikipedia. They said it was anti-science,
anti-Semitic, out of control, and that without empowered
moderators it merely created facts by voting.
That is the kind of leftist Stanlinism-type "research" that
truly educated peopel abhor. Facts are not created by the
consensus of the most radical writers, no matter what the
deconstructionists and leftists among you might wish to
believe.
While Jimbo's idea of an open-source encyclopedia still is
a very good idea, Wikipedia will never be achieve this
goal. At best, it will be a good feeder and working sandbox
for articles that can be vetted by professionals for a
second-level, stable open-source encyclopedia, like Nupedia
was supposed to be. But the Wikipedia itself will at best
become well-known and infamous...not good.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover